[jfengel]

Democracies function on the notion that most people have no idea what they're talking about, and vote randomly. The few who do know what they're talking about will all vote the same way, so most of the time the right answer will prevail.

There are a lot of problems with that assumption. Thus far it seems to work out better than the alternatives, but we'll have to see if that continues to hold.

[bee_rider]

I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure the hope is that people are reasonably well informed. And anyway, we’re voting on representatives, not specific issues, for the most part. (I mean clearly referenda exist, but they aren’t the main thing). Or we’re voting on matters of preference, in which case the populace is essentially correct whatever their decision.

[caseyohara]

> Democracies function on the notion that most people have no idea what they're talking about, and vote randomly.

Can you expand on this? I have no idea what you mean. In what way do most people vote randomly?

[dartos]

The theory is:

In aggregate, the result of uninformed people voting would be more or less the same as voting randomly.

Not that people vote without thinking.

[em-bee]

but that doesn't take into account the influence false reporting in the media has on them. badly or falsely informed is much worse than uninformed.

[corimaith]

Yes, but false reporting isn't coming from just one side is it, it's something all sides can participate in. The way the education system is right now along with societal expectations, people are going to be misinformed rather than admitting to be uninformed.

[dartos]

It does. All sides engage in propaganda, that’s the game.

If someone is not knowledgeable they will likely buy into some propaganda.

At an extremely high and oversimplified level, that’s more or less random.

It’s a thought framework, not a rigorous explanation

[roenxi]

In the absolute sense yes, but this thread was framed in comparison to undemocratic systems. The media aren't biased in the direction of making their host country worse off, so their biases aren't negative in that sense. We'd get better outcomes if people in the public discourse held themselves to higher standards; but their low standards don't stop the tendency of marginal voters to bias on rational decision making.

[em-bee]

The media aren't biased in the direction of making their host country worse off

i don't believe that. at least western media are biased towards majority and conservative views and for profit entities, ignoring or even suppressing minorities and that is making us worse off.

[roenxi]

Conservative views are things that worked in the past though. For profit entities are all dedicated to satisfying the needs and wants of people and are part of society too. >90% of all the gains since the industrial revolution came from for-profit entities so it is a stretch to say they are biased in favour of making things worse. Minorities are, by definition, not a group that includes most people so things can get really brutal for them before it starts hurting the greater society.

These are all biases that may be politically undesirable to you (the corporate media are basically the vanguard of class warfare, so they should be undesirable to a bunch of people), but they aren't biased in the direction of making things worse at the highest level of abstraction. A rising tide benefits all ships.

[jfengel]

That is indeed one of the problems I mentioned in the last paragraph. We are stressing the limits of how much misinformation democracy can handle. We might well be over it.